You are jumping through hoops to try and make a point even though you have absolutely no facts.


Your basic point seems to be that because TSO's failed the test, real bomb parts could not used because "our" people are highly qualified, and very good at what they do and couldn't possibly have missed them.

You are stating that the reason you know all this, is because the people, who failed the test, tell you how good they are and that it is impossible for any other agency to hire trained people as good as the TSAs people. You also assert that because TSA personnel aren't allowed to run realistic tests (and they are the BEST!), no other agency could ever possibly be allowed to run realistic tests (because they can't possibly be as good at what they do).


If you would like to produce some facts to back up your statement "Have no EOD training, which them most likely did not have", then the discussion can continue.

Otherwise you are just making up facts to support your assertions.

Consider there is a box on the pass form that says "has this employee been subject to progressive discipline in the last pass evaluation period (2009.) I dont believe the incident that you are talking about was in that period.

To give you an idea what he is talking about, back in the day.... simulants consisted of things like wax, paper rolls, big ben clocks, D batteries,

Well TSA seems to think that things even more benign than those are bombs, like bottles of water, so that still doesn't excuse their failure rate.

Google can also be your own worst enemy. I wouldn't use wikipedia as a reference, specifically if what is written there isn't referenced itself, such as the "low-yield" thing. Notice it said "low-yield" then mentioned primacord! What!?!?! Primacord is a VERY powerful explosive, and even with my limited training on IEDs I would never, never ever classify it as "low". Nearly laughable what's written on wikipedia....

Uh-hu. Ok ;) yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.... Well, actually part of it is.

I completely agree about Wikipedia; they may not source their information very clearly. So I don't use Wikipedia. Sorry about the forgotten link. In this case, I pieced a couple of quotes -- one sentence that reappeared frequently, simply because it has a personal resonance for me. But, the most germane information came from our friends Down Under:

Fifth Batallion The Royal Australian Regiment Association (see paragraph 2)

All detonating cord (and Primacord is just a branded detonating cord) is not the same. Detonating cord is rated in explosive quantity per unit length. The lowest I've ever seen demonstrated was 50-grain det cord (about 1/70 the power of a stick of dynamite), but I know it's available at least as low as 25-grain. At the opposite end of the spectrum, 250-grain is used to sculpt rock. Just as a personal opinion, I (and the men and women from the DoD who provided my training) would tend to consider 25-grain det cord "low yield" relative to 250-grain. YMMV.

~~ Irish